Messages in this thread | | | From | Herbert Xu <> | Subject | Re: netpoll trapped question | Date | Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:34:54 +1000 |
| |
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> mpm> Yes, true. But we're still in trouble if we have nic irq handler -> >> mpm> take private lock -> printk -> netconsole -> nic irq handler -> take >> mpm> private lock. See? >> >> Okay, so that one has to be addressed on a per-driver basis. There's no >> way for us to detect that situation. And how do drivers address this? >> Simply don't printk inside the lock? I think that's reasonable. > > Why not queue the message whenever you're in IRQ context, and only > print when you are not?
Actually how can this happen at all? The IRQ handler should've disabled local IRQs which prevents the second handler from occuring. -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |